City of Fresno v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 31 March 1980
• Citation: 163 Cal.Rptr. 807,104 Cal.App.3d 25
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF California, COUNTY OF FRESNO, Respondent, Lylon H. LINDBECK, an Individual, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 5316.

Page 807

163 Cal.Rptr. 807

104 Cal.App.3d 25

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF California, COUNTY OF FRESNO, Respondent Lylon H. LINDBECK, an Individual, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 5316.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

March 31, 1980.

Hearing Denied June 19, 1980.

James A. McKelvey, City Atty., James C. E. Barclay, Asst. City Atty., Fresno, for petitioner

Vergil L. Gerard, Michael H. Meyer, Gerard, Sepulveda, Meyer & Gilmore, Fresno, for real party in interest.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION

CONDLEY, ^* Associate Justice.

Petitioner City of Fresno and Parking Authority of the City of Fresno seek a writ of mandate and/or prohibition commanding respondent court to vacate its order relieving Lylon H. Lindbeck, real party in interest, from relief from the claims requirement of Government Code section 945.4.

On January 21, 1979, real party in interest, Lylon H. Lindbeck, was on a visit to Fresno. He drove to the Fresno Hilton Hotel and registered. While waiting for a Hilton elevator in the underground garage in an area prominently marked as reserved for guests of the Fresno Hilton Hotel, he was beaten and robbed.

On or before May 21, 1979, Lindbeck employed Donald K. Marshall, attorney at law, to represent him. Mr. Marshall maintained his office at Madera, California. On May 21, 1979, Mr. Marshall filed a complaint for personal injury seeking damages as a result of the assault that took place in the underground garage. Named as defendants were the Stephens Investment Company, dba Fresno Hilton Hotel, Does I through X, inclusive.

On July 23, 1979, Lindbeck filed a late claim with the City of Fresno. The claim was denied on August 7, 1979.

On October 22, 1979, Lindbeck through his new attorney, Michael H. Meyer, filed a "petition, and notice of hearing of petition for relief and claim requirement; points and authorities" in the Fresno Superior Court. On November 7, 1979, the petition was heard and granted.

Petitioner claims error in that there was an insufficient showing by Lindbeck of a factual basis to support the court's conclusion that Lindbeck's failure to file a timely claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.

No claim had been presented to the City of Fresno or Parking Authority of the City of Fresno within 100 days of the assault and robbery as is required by section 911.2 of the Government Code. ¹

After petitioner's request to file a late claim was denied, petitioner sought relief in the superior court of Fresno pursuant to section 946.6. The pertinent parts of section 946.6 to the issues on this hearing are:

"(c)(1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced if the court relieves the petitioner from the provisions of Section 945.4; or

" . . .

"(e) The court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition." (Emphasis added.)

There was only one affidavit presented on behalf of Lindbeck at the hearing, namely, the affidavit of his attorney Donald K. Marshall. There were no other affidavits filed nor any evidence presented to the trial judge, by either party. Subdivision (e) of section 946.6 above quoted makes clear the restrictions upon a judge in hearing and ruling upon such motions. Since the sworn affidavit was the only matter the judge could base his ruling on, it is set out in full.

"DECLARATION OF DONALD K. MARSHALL

"I, DONALD K. MARSHALL, say:

"1. I am counsel of record for Claimant Lylon H. Lindbeck regarding his injures which occurred on January 21, 1979 in the underground parking garage as more particularly set forth in the proposed claim.

"2. Claimant's injuries occurred while he was a guest of the Fresno Hilton Hotel, and while he was waiting for an elevator to the Fresno Hilton Hotel from said underground parking garage.

"3. In response to an action filed by Claimant Lylon H. Lindbeck against Stephen Investments, Inc., doing business as Fresno Hilton Hotel, Stephen Investments, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against the City of Fresno and the Parking Authority of the City of Fresno. A copy of said cross-complaint is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

"4. Until said cross-complaint was served on me by mail on June 18, 1979, the City of Fresno and the Parking Authority of the City of Fresno did not appear to be parties to Claimant's cause of action, because said cause of action arose at an area of said underground garage prominently marked as reserved for guests of the Fresno Hilton Hotel and which is served by an elevator to the Fresno Hilton Hotel.

"5. The failure to present the claim was through mistake inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and the City of Fresno and the Parking Authority of the City of Fresno are not prejudiced by the failure to present the claim within one-hundred (100) days allowed for presentation of the claim.

"6. The within application for leave to present a late claim is presented within a reasonable time after the accrual of the cause of action.

"Executed on July 23, 1979 at Madera, California.

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."

The city concedes that it suffered no prejudice.

The complaint by Lindbeck was filed May 21, 1979, 120 days from the date of the injury. There was no competent evidence before the court as to when Mr. Lindbeck consulted his attorney. ² It could have been before the statute had run or after it had run.

If it was after the statute had run clearly there was nothing before the court upon which the court could exercise its discretion, hence the writ must be granted. The case of El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d 57, 159 Cal.Rptr. 267 is dispositive. In that case one Evans was injured and 120 days later he engaged a law firm for the purpose of filing a workers' compensation claim. Counsel's investigator learned that a public entity may be involved in a third-party claim. A late claim was filed and denied. The superior court granted relief pursuant to section 946.6. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate setting aside the order of the trial court granting relief.

The only evidence as to Evans' excusable neglect was a statement by the attorneys in their points and authorities as follows:

" 'It is reasonable that a lay person would not know of the existence of a claim against a governmental entity . . . .' " (El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, p. 59, 159 Cal.Rptr. at p. 268.)

At page 62, 159 Cal.Rptr. at page 270, the court goes on to say:

"Yet there was nothing presented to the trial court to support a finding of the second requirement; no legally cognizable mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect of any kind was shown in connection with the passage of the 100 days. The sole effort to explain the failure to file a timely claim was the conclusionary and argumentative statement of counsel in points and authorities that Evans reasonably could be ignorant of the claim-filing requirements, nothing else. Argument of counsel of course is not evidence. (Citation.) Moreover, a mere lack of knowledge of the claim-filing requirements and its time limitation is insufficient." (Emphasis added.)

Assuming that Lindbeck did consult with his attorneys before the 100 days had run, this writ must still issue.

A court does not relieve a potential plaintiff of the claim requirements of section 945.4, as a matter of course; plaintiff must first demonstrate two essentials by a preponderance of the evidence (Shaddox v. Melcher (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 598, 601-602, 76 Cal.Rptr. 80). First, it must be shown that the section 911.4 application was presented within a reasonable time, and second, that the failure to file a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Tammen v. County of San Diego (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 474, 58 Cal.Rptr. 249, 426 P.2d 753.)

The showing required as to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect in proceedings to file a late claim against a governmental agency is the same as required under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relieving a party from a default judgment. (Viles v. State of California (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 423 P.2d 818.)

In Clark v. City of Compton (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 522, 528, 99 Cal.Rptr. 613, 616, the court said:

"As a general rule, neglect authorizing relief under section 473, Code of Civil Procedure, may not be predicated upon that of the party's attorney unless shown to be excusable (citation), because the negligence of the attorney in the premises is imputed to his client and may not be offered by the latter as a basis for relief. (Citation.)"

" 'It is not the purpose of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the setting aside of judgments "which are the result of inexcusable . . . neglect of defendants, themselves, or of their attorneys in the performance of the latter's obligations to their clients. " ' " (Clark v. City of Compton, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d 522, 528, 99 Cal.Rptr. 613, 616.) Excusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person (attorney) under the same circumstances. (Black v. County of Los Angeles (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 675, 91 Cal.Rptr. 104.) A petitioner or his attorney must show more than he just failed to discover a fact until too late; they must establish that in the use of reasonable diligence they failed to discover it. (Black v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 677, 91 Cal.Rptr. 104.)

Turning to the facts, the only evidence before the trial court was the affidavit...